2019 UT App 88

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

REED SCOTT WATERFALL,

Petitioner,

v.

RETIREMENT BOARD AND 

UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS,

Respondents.

Opinion

No. 20180192-CA

Filed May 23, 2019

Original Proceeding in this Court

Michael V. Houtz and Keith M. Backman, Attorneys

for Petitioner

David B. Hansen and Erin G. Christensen, Attorneys

for Respondents

JUDGE KATE APPLEBY authored this Opinion, in which 

JUDGES RYAN M. HARRIS and DIANA HAGEN concurred.

APPLEBY, Judge:

¶1 Reed Scott Waterfall seeks judicial review of Utah 

Retirement Systems’ (URS) calculation of his benefits as a justice 

court judge for South Ogden City (City) from 1992 to 2012. We 

approve Utah State Retirement Board’s (Board) determination

that Waterfall was a part-time employee during the relevant 

period.
Waterfall v. Retirement Board

20180192-CA 2 2019 UT App 88

BACKGROUND

¶2 Waterfall was employed as a justice court judge in the 

City from 1992 to 2012.1 In April 2012, the city director of finance 

reported to URS that “Judge Waterfall has always been 

part-time” while working for the City (2012 Report). Based on 

this representation, URS planned on calculating Waterfall’s 

retirement benefits based on his part-time employment status 

with the City.

¶3 Waterfall disputed the calculation of his benefits by filing 

a request for board action in 2013. He argued that the part-time

determination was incorrect and he should have been

considered a full-time employee for the City. A hearing on the 

issue was held in 2015. At the hearing, the hearing officer 

considered the 2012 Report indicating Waterfall was part-time, 

as well as a subsequent letter dated March 2015 (2015 Letter) 

from the city manager (City Manager) indicating that Waterfall 

actually worked full-time for the City. The hearing officer also 

heard testimony from Waterfall on the issue. Based on the 

evidence presented, the hearing officer issued findings of fact 

and conclusions of law denying Waterfall’s request to be 

considered a full-time employee for the City. The Board 

approved the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by 

the hearing officer and denied Waterfall’s petition for 

reconsideration.

¶4 In November 2016, Waterfall notified URS that he 

retired.2 Throughout 2016 and the beginning of 2017, Waterfall 

communicated with URS regarding the calculation of his 

retirement benefits. In 2017, Waterfall filed his retirement 

 

1. During his career, Waterfall was also employed as a justice 

court judge in Roy City and other jurisdictions.

2. Waterfall stopped working for the City in 2012. The record is 

unclear from where Waterfall retired in 2016.
Waterfall v. Retirement Board

20180192-CA 3 2019 UT App 88

application and attached the 2015 Letter, which stated he was a 

full-time employee for the City. In response URS told Waterfall 

that his benefit would be calculated based on the Board’s 

determination that he was a part-time employee. Waterfall then 

provided URS with a second letter dated January 2017 (2017 

Letter), again signed by City Manager, “reaffirming” Waterfall 

was a full-time employee for the City during the relevant period.

¶5 URS was unsure how to interpret the conflicting 

information regarding Waterfall’s employment status and asked

the city attorney (City Attorney) for a response. City Attorney 

notified URS that the City’s position was that the 2015 and 2017

letters from City Manager “should be withdrawn” and the 2012 

Report should “be deemed the official response as to Mr. 

Waterfall’s employment status.” Based on City Attorney’s 

response and its own previous determination after a hearing that 

Waterfall worked part-time for the City, URS calculated 

Waterfall’s retirement benefits based on part-time employment. 

¶6 In October 2017, Waterfall filed a second request for board 

action challenging URS’s calculation of his benefits based on this

part-time employment certification. URS filed a motion to 

dismiss arguing that res judicata barred Waterfall’s claim and 

that he failed to establish he was a full-time employee. URS 

argued Waterfall could not be considered full-time because City 

Attorney’s letter indicated he was part-time and withdrew prior 

letters indicating he was full-time. The hearing officer granted 

the motion to dismiss. The Board affirmed the dismissal of 

Waterfall’s petition.

¶7 Waterfall seeks judicial review of the Board’s dismissal of 

his petition. 

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8 The issue under review is whether the Board properly 

granted URS’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Waterfall
Waterfall v. Retirement Board

20180192-CA 4 2019 UT App 88

did not meet the statutory requirements to be considered a 

full-time employee of the City during the relevant period.3 On 

“review of an agency’s formal adjudicative proceedings, we treat 

the Board’s dismissal of [Waterfall’s] petition as analogous to a 

court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to a . . . motion for 

failure to state a claim” under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Adkins v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 926 P.2d 

880, 882 (Utah 1996) (quotation simplified). “Therefore, we grant 

no particular deference to the Board’s legal conclusions.” Id.

(quotation simplified). “[W]e accept all facts alleged as true, and 

indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving 

party.” O’Hearon v. Hansen, 2017 UT App 214, ¶ 10, 409 P.3d 85

(quotation simplified). 

¶9 This case requires us to review the Board’s application of 

relevant statutes in the Utah State Retirement and Insurance 

Benefit Act. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 49-11-101 to -23-601 

(LexisNexis 2015). “We review the Board’s application or 

interpretation of a statute as a question of law under the 

correction-of-error standard.” Whitaker v. Utah State Ret. Board, 

2008 UT App 282, ¶ 10, 191 P.3d 814 (quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

¶10 Waterfall argues his petition should not have been 

dismissed because the City considered him a full-time employee 

at the time of his retirement and URS had no authority to change 

the certification. He contends URS was required to accept the 

2015 Letter as the final certification from the City regarding his 

employment status.

 

3. Waterfall also argues his petition should not have been 

dismissed under res judicata. We do not reach this issue because

we approve the Board’s decision to dismiss Waterfall’s petition

on the alternative ground that he did not meet the statutory 

requirements to be considered a full-time employee.
Waterfall v. Retirement Board

20180192-CA 5 2019 UT App 88

¶11 Utah Code section 49-13-406 provides, “A justice court 

judge who has service with more than one participating 

employer shall be considered full-time by the office for a period 

of service in which the judge is certified as full-time by: (i) a 

participating employer; or (ii) the Administrative Office of the 

Courts . . . .” Utah Code Ann. § 49-13-406(3)(a) (LexisNexis 

2015).4 Waterfall argues that the word “shall” in the statute binds 

URS to accept the 2015 Letter as the certification of his 

employment status for the City. He contends the 2017 Letter 

from City Attorney is irrelevant because URS received the letter 

after his retirement date. URS argues Waterfall lacks proper 

certification of full-time employment because City Attorney 

withdrew City Manager’s letters indicating he was a full-time 

employee.

¶12 Utah Code section 49-11-607 addresses the problem that 

arises when there are errors or disputes in an employee’s 

records. After an employee retires, alterations, additions, and 

cancellations of benefits are not allowed except under the 

following circumstances: (1) if there are “[e]rrors in the records 

or in the calculations of the office which result in an incorrect 

benefit to any member,” (2) if there are “[e]rrors in the records or 

calculation of a participating employer which result in an 

incorrect benefit to a member,” or (3) “[i]f a dispute exists 

between a participating employer and a member at the time of 

the member’s retirement.” Id. § 49-11-607(1)–(4). 

¶13 In this case, URS was presented with conflicting reports 

about Waterfall’s employment status. Under section 49-11-607, 

 

4. The statute does not make clear who is authorized to speak for

the judge’s “employer.” It also does not articulate guidelines for 

what constitutes full-time and part-time employment. It may be 

advisable for the legislature to specify exactly who is authorized 

to speak for a justice court judge’s municipal employer in this 

context, and to set out clear guidelines for what constitutes 

full-time and part-time employment.
Waterfall v. Retirement Board

20180192-CA 6 2019 UT App 88

URS may fix errors in, and resolve disputes about, the 

calculation of benefits even after an employee retires. That is 

what happened here. After URS contacted the City regarding the 

conflicting reports, City Attorney responded and said the City’s 

official response was that Waterfall was a part-time employee.

URS was thus able to correct the error and resolve the dispute 

over whether Waterfall was a part-time or full-time employee.

¶14 Waterfall relies on Gottfredson v. Utah State Retirement

Board to support his position that benefits are fixed at retirement

and cannot be changed after that date. 808 P.2d 153 (Utah Ct.

App. 1991). In Gottfredson, the petitioner filed a retirement 

application, then after his established retirement date had 

passed, he learned about pending legislation that would increase 

his benefit and tried to rescind his application. Id. at 154. This 

court determined the Board properly refused his request 

because, after the established retirement date had passed, “no 

alteration, addition, or cancellation of [his] benefits could be 

made.” Id. at 155 (citing the relevant provisions of the Utah 

Code). But our decision in Gottfredson does not support 

Waterfall’s position in this case. Again, while it is generally true 

that an employee’s benefits become fixed at the time of 

retirement, URS retains the ability to ensure the benefit is correct 

under the exceptions listed in Utah Code section 49-11-607. We 

approve the Board’s dismissal of Waterfall’s second request for 

board action. 

CONCLUSION

¶15 The Board properly dismissed Waterfall’s petition 

because URS had the ability to correct City Manger’s error and 

resolve the dispute regarding whether he was a part-time or 

full-time employee. We therefore decline to disturb URS’s

calculation of his benefits, or its decision to treat Waterfall as a 

part-time employee.